[The Sabbaticus]

False equivalency as the one involves murder and death threats, and the other involves race baiting by brain-damaged imbeciles.

[Vanasalus]

If you talked to anyone who even is remotely knowledgeable on the issues of the Middle East, you would know that Wahhabism is the most widespread flavor of Islam and that many countries in the Middle East sponsor and enforce Wahhabism to such a degree that these countries have made it into a semi-intergral part of those country's culture.

Nope. Not at all.

Wahhabist ideology is in government in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar only.

Among these three, wahhabis are the minority in Saudi Arabia.

The most widespread flavor of Islam is classical Sunnism with a touch of Sufism in it.

Higher the degree of Sufi effect, higher the enmity towards Wahabbism. As in the case in my home country of Turkey.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

I highly doubt that Christians feverantly defended the Bible just because they were expensive and you are also aware of this. We both know that even saying something bad about Christianity would gander a similar response.

And your evidence of this is? Bible bashing would've had the same exact response after the printing press was made because destroying the bible is a symbolic action, not a practical one. It represents a political belief, not some necessity. Burning a bible for example represents, to Christians, an attack on Christianity. This is exactly the thought process of the Muslims here. I'm not saying that it's the right reaction but it certainly is the expected reaction.

Furthermore, don't Protestants believe that the Bible is the highest authority of not just the church but of God's revelation? I find that it would be quite ridiculous for Protestants to both place the Bible on such a high pedestal yet also be completely passive when a person disrespects the Bible by burning it or putting their foot on it. Don't you too find it ridiculous and contradictory?

I also find it odd SolarCross that you are an atheist and have expressed several times before that you dislike most religions and prefer paganism but are now attempting to defend Christianity during the Middle Ages (which is probably the most stupid thing anyone can do honestly) and usually you seem to defend Christianity often. Do you have a soft spot for Christianity SolarCross? Has it been significant in your life?

[Oxymandias]

@Vanasalus

I disagree. I am not saying that Wahhabism is the most widespread version of Islam rather that it is the most influential version of Islam. Yes, only the Saudi family may be Wahhabi but that doesn't mean that it's crowning ideology doesn't influence all other aspects of the country. Saudi Arabia's extremist edge is given to it because of that crowning ideology.

Sufism isn't a sect. It's basically an Islamic "science" and I mean science in a very, very broad manner. Sufism is the idea that you must clear yourself of all the Horrible Things of the World and fill yourself with Love in order to become closer to God and that, through continuous meditation, praying, and self-dialogue, you can achieve what is essentially Enlightenment. Now, although Sufism as an Islamic "science" is pretty out of fashion in the same way Mutazila is dead, it's influence still remains in modern Islam today particularly among Sunnis.

[Political Interest]

When I opened this page I immediately scrolled down, finding the image so offensive and disgusting.

Whoever did this needs to go to jail.

I find it utterly vile and horrible.

And if anyone thinks that they would not do this to other religions, then think again. They clearly have no respect for what is sacred.

Completely objectionable people.

I actually cannot believe this and find it so offensive. What is wrong with them ...

[ThirdTerm]

Muslim outrage on social networks after video of 2 American women degrading the Quran went viral with more than 15 million views

This blog post only comes with four photos and the one-line description above and I assume that this is fake news. I cannot find other sources to back it up. Probably Muslims even don't know what these women did in the privacy of their own home.

[Oxymandias]

@Political Interest

What's so vile about this again? I don't have any issue with it. It's their life, they can do whatever they want and it's not like stepping on the Quran will cause the world to explode or anything. Just relax.

[foxdemon]

@Oxymandias it is a popular hobby amongst Westerners to be outraged on other people’s behalf.

[Oxymandias]

@foxdemon

Aren't you a Westerner foxdemon and haven't you also participated in this hobby?

[foxdemon]

@Oxymandias not all Westerners pursue that hobby.

[Political Interest]

This blog post only comes with four photos and the one-line description above and I assume that this is fake news. I cannot find other sources to back it up. Probably Muslims even don't know what these women did in the privacy of their own home.

Whoever did it, we can agree that it is garish and disgusting, can't we? We do not need to be Muslims to find it offensive.

What's so vile about this again? I don't have any issue with it. It's their life, they can do whatever they want and it's not like stepping on the Quran will cause the world to explode or anything. Just relax.

You honestly don't find this bad taste?

it is a popular hobby amongst Westerners to be outraged on other people’s behalf.

Except what you do not realise is that I'm not a screaming white liberal. I oppose a lot of the hysteria that the cultural letists propose and I am against the colonisation of Europe.

But that does not mean I stop being a reasonable person.

These women or whoever they are, who did this, could do this to any religion. This act signifies that they have no respect for anything. There is a natural reverence for all sacred things that most religoius people have, even if it is not of their own religion. But what these people did shows a disrespect for all religions. And in that book is written the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is so utterly depraved what they have done.

And if nothing is offensive and it is just getting offended on behalf of others then why is it not possible for me to walk to the Brandenburg Gate in a Waffen SS uniform and shout out that the holocaust didn't happen? Would the offense caused by such an action be Westerners getting offended on behalf of others?

[Diligent]

You honestly don't find this bad taste?

Bad taste? Sure. But to be thrown in jail because of it? That's a bit much.

[Libertarian353]

There religion of of rape and terror deserve no respect

But our race does? You didn't care about the terror in Somalia, so don't you dare call Islam rape and terror. If anything Israel is the nation of rape and terror. Our race does more rape and terror than Islam would ever hope to accomplish.

[SolarCross]

I highly doubt that Christians feverantly defended the Bible just because they were expensive and you are also aware of this. We both know that even saying something bad about Christianity would gander a similar response.

Like yourself perhaps I don't have any evidence that Christians in the 6th century would, as you imagine, apply extra-judicial death penalties to someone who defaced a 6th century bible but in the absence of any evidence either way I supplied a very real difference between a 6th century bible in its context and a 21st century bible or quran which clearly illustrates that defacing a 6th century bible is not even remotely a comparable act to a defacing a modern bible.

Early Christians experienced a fair amount of persecution at the hands of pagan Romans, other pagans and also a little later Muslims. I expect as rare and valuable as early bibles were a good number of instances occurred where they were wilfully destroyed along with the people carrying them.

And your evidence of this is? Bible bashing would've had the same exact response after the printing press was made because destroying the bible is a symbolic action, not a practical one. It represents a political belief, not some necessity. Burning a bible for example represents, to Christians, an attack on Christianity. This is exactly the thought process of the Muslims here. I'm not saying that it's the right reaction but it certainly is the expected reaction.

Not all religions or practitioners are the same, and symbolic attacks don't necessarily warrant the same degree of reaction as actual attacks. It is noteworthy that Christians are somewhat noted for weathering actual attacks with grace, I would wonder if they couldn't tolerate virtual attacks with comparable grace.

It wasn't necessary for muslims to dynamite the golden buddhas of Afghanistan, to a buddhist that may be sacrilege, so far I have yet to see a reprisal.

Furthermore, don't Protestants believe that the Bible is the highest authority of not just the church but of God's revelation? I find that it would be quite ridiculous for Protestants to both place the Bible on such a high pedestal yet also be completely passive when a person disrespects the Bible by burning it or putting their foot on it. Don't you too find it ridiculous and contradictory?

The protestants may believe the information in the book is the "highest authority" but they are not sentimental about the paper and binding. Catholics were in the eyes of protestants guilty of this kind of sentimentalism, so in the course of reformation a good deal of Catholic bric-a-brac was defaced and destroyed. It was a shame in a way as Catholic churches were rather colourful, rich perhaps overipe with religious art, but protestants whitewashed over all that art when they took over the buildings.

I also find it odd SolarCross that you are an atheist and have expressed several times before that you dislike most religions and prefer paganism but are now attempting to defend Christianity during the Middle Ages (which is probably the most stupid thing anyone can do honestly) and usually you seem to defend Christianity often. Do you have a soft spot for Christianity SolarCross? Has it been significant in your life?

In the interests of full disclosure I am not an atheist. I was as a teenager I guess, but have since seen reason to doubt the surety of the atheist position and moreover I learned not to overestimate my ability to understand anything objectively particularly in the invariably inevitable circumstances where I do not possess all the facts. Thus my baseline is agnosticism. On top of that I enjoy but don't necessarily believe the polytheistic religions of Europe and I have learned how to do the Buddhist method of meditation, the same method that when practised diligently leads surely to enlightenment though I am not a diligent meditator, sadly.

I have very little experience of Christianity in the practice of it though I am increasingly interested in it. I will say that I believe Adolf Hitler's disparaging estimation of Christianity as "meek and flabby" is both wrong and right at the same time; right because Christianity is "meek and flabby" but wrong because this meekness and flabbiness is exactly what is great about Christianity. Human beings are the most dangerous animals on earth, we are the apex of apex predators, and we are at least as dangerous to each other as anything else, and with nukes we have the destructive powers of gods, consequently we need no help from religion in becoming more nasty! Indeed what humans need from religion are persuasions to be nice... Christianity for whatever faults it may have and however imperfectly that message is acted on by its adherents does have sincere persuasions towards niceness. Sadly Islam seems to be the opposite, it encourages nastiness especially towards non-muslims.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

Like yourself perhaps I don't have any evidence that Christians in the 6th century would, as you imagine, apply extra-judicial death penalties to someone who defaced a 6th century bible but in the absence of any evidence either way I supplied a very real difference between a 6th century bible in its context and a 21st century bible or quran which clearly illustrates that defacing a 6th century bible is not even remotely a comparable act to a defacing a modern bible.

Early Christians experienced a fair amount of persecution at the hands of pagan Romans, other pagans and also a little later Muslims. I expect as rare and valuable as early bibles were a good number of instances occurred where they were wilfully destroyed along with the people carrying them.

However my point is that 6th century's Christian's reaction to bible bashing is comparable to modern day's Muslim's reactions. They are very similar and have the same thought process involved. That is my point and it is one that you have yet to contradict.

Christians were seen as people of the book and therefore cannot be persecuted under Islamic law. The Ottoman Empire did not persecute Christianity however the Ottoman Empire did use Christians, particularly Christian children as a sort of "intermediary" in politics and did so through rather extreme methods. Note that, once again, this is different from persecuting Christians.

Not all religions or practitioners are the same, and symbolic attacks don't necessarily warrant the same degree of reaction as actual attacks. It is noteworthy that Christians are somewhat noted for weathering actual attacks with grace, I would wonder if they couldn't tolerate virtual attacks with comparable grace.

It wasn't necessary for muslims to dynamite the golden buddhas of Afghanistan, to a buddhist that may be sacrilege, so far I have yet to see a reprisal.

The reasons for such a reaction is due to the political and cultural climate of the current Middle East. Islam isn't the object that caused such a reaction. A lack of cultural identity and intense insecurities both cultural and economic caused such a reaction. Islam in the Middle East, like Christianity in Europe during Medieval times, was a replacement for culture and identity. This is what created such a reaction, not because of whatever was said in the Quran. If you even bothered to read the Quran you would know that it basically says that you're not supposed to fight anyone who ridicules you and that God will deal with it himself. Of course you don't know this so you think anything that involves Muslims and bad stuff is inherent to Islam while anything good a Muslim does is not due to Islam. You're the typical /r/atheism type.

What sort of "grace" are you referring to?

The reasons for that bombing is due to intense nationalism and lack of understanding of Buddahism (which under previous empires with Islam as a state religion was considered to be protected under Islamic law).

The protestants may believe the information in the book is the "highest authority" but they are not sentimental about the paper and binding. Catholics were in the eyes of protestants guilty of this kind of sentimentalism, so in the course of reformation a good deal of Catholic bric-a-brac was defaced and destroyed. It was a shame in a way as Catholic churches were rather colourful, rich perhaps overipe with religious art, but protestants whitewashed over all that art when they took over the buildings.

That is contested among Protestants. I have talked to many Protestants and while some of them agree with what you're saying others consider that the book is also sacred and some even think that destroying the book would be comparable to destroying that information. And, as I said before, burning the bible is a symbolic action, one that many Christians completely disagree with. You will not get complete "ok-ness" with burning the bible from Christians since many Christians are aware that it's symbolic of that person's level of hatred towards the religion.

In the interests of full disclosure I am not an atheist. I was as a teenager I guess, but have since seen reason to doubt the surety of the atheist position and moreover I learned not to overestimate my ability to understand anything objectively particularly in the invariably inevitable circumstances where I do not possess all the facts. Thus my baseline is agnosticism. On top of that I enjoy but don't necessarily believe the polytheistic religions of Europe and I have learned how to do the Buddhist method of meditation, the same method that when practised diligently leads surely to enlightenment though I am not a diligent meditator, sadly.

Hey, I'm agnostic too! Agnostics unite! Anyways, I was also originally an atheist as a teenager actually, aggressively atheist. Eventually I grew out of it and became an agnostic when I ended up doubting my beliefs. Similarly to you, I too enjoy polytheistic faiths and some good ol' fashion Buddhist meditation although I don't believe that it'll allow me to achieve Enlightenment. I prefer the Sufi method of achieving Enlightenment of which is through attempting to fill myself with love of everything and all which sometimes works but also doesn't. I think the best way for me to actually fill myself with love is by being open-minded to everyone around me and accepting everyone. It really does work and I highly recommend you try it.

I have very little experience of Christianity in the practice of it though I am increasingly interested in it. I will say that I believe Adolf Hitler's disparaging estimation of Christianity as "meek and flabby" is both wrong and right at the same time; right because Christianity is "meek and flabby" but wrong because this meekness and flabbiness is exactly what is great about Christianity. Human beings are the most dangerous animals on earth, we are the apex of apex predators, and we are at least as dangerous to each other as anything else, and with nukes we have the destructive powers of gods, consequently we need no help from religion in becoming more nasty! Indeed what humans need from religion are persuasions to be nice... Christianity for whatever faults it may have and however imperfectly that message is acted on by its adherents does have sincere persuasions towards niceness. Sadly Islam seems to be the opposite, it encourages nastiness especially towards non-muslims.

1. Let me get this out of the way, you are well aware that Islam doesn't encourage nastiness towards non-Muslims. You know that Islam as the "People of the Book" and that Islam doesn't advocate for the killing of kafir, only the avoidance of them and the attempt to be as nice to them as possible because if they see your example, they might suddenly turn Muslim.

2. Islam compared to Christianity at a surface level, is probably much more stricter and cold than Christianity's overwhelming advocacy of love. However Islam has a different conception of love, one that is more individualistic and Eastern than one might think.

[Rugoz]

Let me get this out of the way, you are well aware that Islam doesn't encourage nastiness towards non-Muslims.

Your defense of the Quran or even the Bible is silly.

Both are very nasty books I cannot finish because I find them so disgusting and dumb.

[SolarCross]

Your defense of the Quran or even the Bible is silly.

Both are very nasty books I cannot finish because I find them so disgusting and dumb.

The New Testament isn't that "disgusting" even the most adult orientated Film adaption Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ was pretty tame. How does it compare with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Hellraiser II?

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

If you only read the Quran, it says that you're not supposed to interact with kafir, not that you should kill them. I am well-aware that the hadiths state that you must kill kafir but I don't count the hadiths because I want to encourage a Quranist viewing of Islam given that it is probably it's most theologically correct form also it's the least violent or contradictory form and probably the best chance at an Islamic Reformation.

@SolarCross

The New Testament is a novel, therefore it must be compared with other novels in terms of disgusting-ness not movies which hold the advantage of having a visual element.

Furthermore, disgusting-ness is subjective so while you may not see the Bible to be that disgusting, all that is needed is for Rugoz to find it disgusting. I agree with Rugoz here, the Quran has some very fucked up shit that you could find in some Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie while the Bible has some super fucked up shit you could find potentially in a Hellraiser movie.

Also they have loads of weird, funny stuff that's kinda fun to look at like how the hadiths say you must drink camel piss or how the Bible specifies how your clothes should be knitted.

[SolarCross]

If you only read the Quran, it says that you're not supposed to interact with kafir, not that you should kill them. I am well-aware that the hadiths state that you must kill kafir but I don't count the hadiths because I want to encourage a Quranist viewing of Islam given that it is probably it's most theologically correct form also it's the least violent or contradictory form and probably the best chance at an Islamic Reformation.

The Quran is bizarre on its own, it is some of the prophet's sayings but completely shorn of any context and then arranged in a bizarre non-chronological order to further confuse things. The hadiths are needed to make any sense of it really. Of course making sure no one makes sense of it might well be the best way of civilising muslims. lol.

The New Testament is a novel, therefore it must be compared with other novels in terms of disgusting-ness not movies which hold the advantage of having a visual element.

Christians of course see it as history rather than fiction, it may well be for all I know. It is all fairly plausible except for the miracles of course. Coming back from the dead is a pretty neat trick.

Furthermore, disgusting-ness is subjective so while you may not see the Bible to be that disgusting, all that is needed is for Rugoz to find it disgusting. I agree with Rugoz here, the Quran has some very fucked up shit that you could find in some Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie while the Bible has some super fucked up shit you could find potentially in a Hellraiser movie.

Fair point.

Also they have loads of weird, funny stuff that's kinda fun to look at like how the hadiths say you must drink camel piss or how the Bible specifies how your clothes should be knitted.

There is something in the hadith about eating honey for an upset stomach, which is not a terrible home remedy. Honey has anti-bacterial anti-parasitic properties which conceivably could help some causes of a stomach ache.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

Actually it's pretty readable as a stand alone book. It's just pretty vague when it comes to specifics such as how to pray and what not which, based on the Quran, isn't necessary at all. The Quran simply emphasizes that you pray and that it's more important that you pray to God than how you're praying.

Middle Easterners won't be "civilized" by a change in religion. Religion is used as a part of a reaction to a wider issue which is economic and social instability. Islam is seen by many as an escape, a place where they can feel safe and comforted under such dire circumstances. If you fix these problems, you won't even have to change the religion itself. Religion is a cult that has grown to be a part of wider society. Therefore religion does not control society, society controls religion so if society becomes stable, so will religion.

Doesn't the Bible also say something like that?

On another note, I think personally that the best religion or metaphysical ideology would be a secular humanism combined with pantheism that is presented in the same mystical manner to that of other religions (which I think is part of the appeal of religion). Also add in some Hegelian philosophy because I like Hegel and his very interesting metaphysics.